AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact of a minor under thirteen (CSCM) and criminal sexual penetration of the same child (CSPM). He sought to present defenses based on involuntary intoxication, inability to form specific intent due to voluntary intoxication, and temporary insanity. The Defendant argued that he was pressured into drinking alcohol by his brother, which, given his cultural background and psychological issues, should be considered involuntary intoxication.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Benjamin Chavez, District Judge: The district court refused to permit the Defendant to present jury instructions regarding involuntary intoxication, inability to form specific intent as a result of voluntary intoxication, and temporary insanity as defenses to the charges.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the pressure from his brother to consume alcohol, in the context of his cultural background and psychological issues, constituted duress making his intoxication involuntary. He also contended that, if his intoxication was considered voluntary, he should have been allowed to instruct the jury on the defense of voluntary intoxication to negate specific intent. Additionally, the Defendant initially raised, but did not pursue, an argument regarding temporary insanity.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether sibling pressure to consume alcohol constitutes duress such that the resulting intoxication should be considered involuntary.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication to negate specific intent for the crimes charged.
• Whether the Defendant abandoned his argument regarding temporary insanity.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's order refusing to permit the Defendant to present jury instructions regarding involuntary intoxication, inability to form specific intent as a result of voluntary intoxication, and temporary insanity.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court held that sibling pressure does not constitute the type of duress that would render resulting intoxication involuntary, distinguishing the Defendant's situation from cases where individuals ingested substances without knowing they were intoxicating (paras 2-3).
  The court corrected its earlier mischaracterization of CSCM and CSPM as strict liability offenses, acknowledging that voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense to specific intent crimes. However, it found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that unlawfulness was a matter at issue in the case, thus not entitling him to an instruction on voluntary intoxication (paras 3-4).
  The court concluded that the Defendant abandoned his argument regarding temporary insanity by not making specific arguments in opposition to the court's proposed summary disposition on this issue (para 5).